9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced below: "1. That the learned CIT(A), Bareilly erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of Assessing Officer treating the entire rental income of Rs.10,85,276/- of the appellant which is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and added Rs.7,54,418/- as extra income after allowing deduction u/s 24 of the I.T. Act, 1961." 3. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that assessee is an individual and during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had claimed deduction u/s 57 of the Act in respect of income received as rental and which the assessee had declared under the head 'income from other sources'. The assessee was therefore, required to provide the details of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 32 of the paper book where a copy of sale deed of the property in favour of the mother and assessee and all other family members was placed. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since the assessee himself was carrying on his own business therefore, for his share of property, his share in the rent was nil. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this practice of sub letting has been followed by him in the succeeding years also and in this respect my attention was invited to paper book pages 96 to 102 where copies of computation of income of assessee for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 are placed. Learned counsel for the assessee also invited my attention to pages 53, 54 and 68 to 70 of the paper book where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial placed on record. I find that the assessee had received the rental income from the godown, jointly owned by him and other family members namely Shri Ashish Mehrotra, Smt. Asha Mehrotra and Shri Amit Mehrotra. The entire rent received by the assessee has been paid to these three persons and this practice has been followed in succeeding years where the assessee has again claimed the rent paid to family members as deduction u/s 57 of the Act. The assessee, before the Assessing Officer, had filed affidavits of Shri Ashish Mehrotra, Smt. Asha Mehrotra and Shri Amit Mehrotra where they have confirmed that they have received the respective amounts from Vineet Mehrotra as part of the rent of the godown. The respective amounts, received from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited Spirits for letting out the godown but merely letting out the property, belonging to others, by one of the family members, does not entitle the assessee to earn the rental income. The rental income received by assessee in fact belongs to these persons who are owners of that part of the property. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction to the assessee u/s 57 of the Act as the distribution of income by assessee in this case is equivalent to amount spent for earning of the income which is allowable deduction u/s 57 of the Act.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
( Order pronounced in the open court on 30/08/2022 ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
